From: Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...>
Date: 2001-10-26T03:06:58+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23326] Re: () vs (...) in header files

On Fri, 26 Oct 2001 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

> The correct prototypes for rb_thread_select() and
> rb_thread_wait_for() use `fd_set' and `struct timeval'. And I
> didn't want to force to include system dependent headers.

Ah, but if I am to call these functions, then I will need to include the
system headers anyway.  The important thing to consider is that it could
be very dangerous if I happen to include a system header different from
the one that eval.c includes.

Perhaps a good compromise would be to put rb_thread_wait_for and
rb_thread_select into their own header, so that if you include intern.h,
then you don't get the system headers, but if you include the thread
header, then you do?

> Not all methods take `self' first.  Consider -1 arity methods.

Good point.  I had not considered that.

> Rather, I suggest;
>
> #ifdef __cplusplus
  [snip]
> #endif

I don't think it's legal to overload functions with C linkage (at least,
gcc doesn't like it).  Otherwise, that would be a good idea.

Paul